Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is kinda the point behind what I was arguing in the other thread about the need for some sort of level cap system.
That is, of course, assuming that the 5/5/5/5 and the 10/10 and the 20 all represent the equivalent time investment (i.e. the 2.5 years it would take to get to plateau)..... if that assumption is NOT the case, then the issue is not as straight-forward.
I just have trouble envisioning the details by which you make the multi-classed character in some combination of levels below the Plateau Not overly gimped when compared to the single classed character of equivalent time investment....and then somehow translate that into the 20/20/20/20 not being super-powered at the same time.
The way I'd imagine it is individual skill trees with increased time investments as they go further down.
I.E the getting to the "level 5" point is about 1 month, 5-10 3 months, 10-15 6 months, 15-20 1 year.
a rapid split would be extremely versatile and would be 5/5/5/5 before the single focus hit 10, though would also have voided himself from the option of getting 3 capstones.
|
It is called exponential time investment required with ever larger neg lvl death penalties.
It should be extremelly rare to find someone actually get there that's why the stacked should not be gimped(I hope I used that right). It should be so difficult to get there that anyone who does deseves the respect of the community.
One possible way to achieve this is past a certain point the speed with which the increases are earned should be slowed and slowed until you get a negative(which would only go down to the point in which the neg started)which would only apply to the earning of exp while offline, once you come online then you gain at normal speed.
This means someone always playing and never dying might get there but the farther they make it the more stacked against them it becomes, in this way no one would ever actually get the max on everything, and while learning new things when playing their lvls drop their dps everytime they loggout or die. Someone who becomes lvl60(20/20/20) deserves their overpowered ness and makes them rare at best and uncommon at worst.
I know this means a casual player will never get lvl 60 but they would still be a threat more so in groups.
But how else can you make epic level characters rare while allowing casual players to achieve when skill gains are rl time and not active time?
In fact isn't the idea that becomeing something special, should require large investments? If they use this idea then becomeing a lvl 60 is something that would deserve congratulating by rl friends even non-gamers.
How much time will you spend on a single char after 10 years when new stuff has come out?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In fact isn't the idea that becomeing something special, should require large investments? If they use this idea then becomeing a lvl 60 is something that would deserve congratulating by rl friends even non-gamers.
How much time will you spend on a single char after 10 years when new stuff has come out?
No by your system getting level 60 involves avoiding the key aspects of the game. Not dying means hiding in a hole in high security town, only venturing out to do what is required of the merit badge, and hiding back in town, actually participating in the wars and focus of the game would be guaranteed huge setbacks, so the highest strongest players would be the ones that cooked in the oven the longest, and avoided serious combat. IE avoided the main content of the game.
Sounds pretty counter productive to me for so many reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which is kinda the point behind what I was arguing in the other thread about the need for some sort of level cap system.
That is, of course, assuming that the 5/5/5/5 and the 10/10 and the 20 all represent the equivalent time investment (i.e. the 2.5 years it would take to get to plateau)..... if that assumption is NOT the case, then the issue is not as straight-forward.
I just have trouble envisioning the details by which you make the multi-classed character in some combination of levels below the Plateau Not overly gimped when compared to the single classed character of equivalent time investment....and then somehow translate that into the 20/20/20/20 not being super-powered at the same time.
The way I'd imagine it is individual skill trees with increased time investments as they go further down.
I.E the getting to the "level 5" point is about 1 month, 5-10 3 months, 10-15 6 months, 15-20 1 year.
a rapid split would be extremely versatile and would be 5/5/5/5 before the single focus hit 10, though would also have voided himself from the option of getting 3 capstones.
Right, I get that....but I would have to assume that the 5/5/5/5 or whatever the time investement equivalent of the 10 would have to realize some stacking or additive effect of the different levels of his abilities in order to be ROUGHLY on the same playing field power-wise as the 10... his abilities might not FULLY stack or be ADDITIVE to one another because he is gaining more versatility...but I would have to assume there was SOME additive function going on in order for that character to not be gimped.
What I'm trying to reconcile is the mechanism by which the 5/5/5/5 or whatever equivalent realizes SOME additive benefit of his abilities....yet at the same time prevent the 20/20/20/20/20 from realizing an additive benefit of his abilities that we know would result in overshadowing the level 20 not just in versatility but in raw power. It strikes me as somewhat of a catch-22...or at the very least a rather complicated mechanism to try to design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, I get that....but I would have to assume that the 5/5/5/5 or whatever the time investement equivalent of the 10 would have to realize some stacking or additive effect of the different levels of his abilities in order to be ROUGHLY on the same playing field power-wise as the 10... his abilities might not FULLY stack or be ADDITIVE to one another because he is gaining more versatility...but I would have to assume there was SOME additive function going on in order for that character to not be gimped.
What I'm trying to reconcile is the mechanism by which the 5/5/5/5 or whatever equivalent realizes SOME additive benefit of his abilities....yet at the same time prevent the 20/20/20/20/20 from realizing an additive benefit of his abilities that we know would result in overshadowing the level 20 not just in versatility but in raw power. It strikes me as somewhat of a catch-22...or at the very least a rather complicated mechanism to try to design.
Yeah I fully understand what you are going for, but the level of difficulty involved in something like that, would have to be something insanely difficult to balance. Honestly to me it seems like the only real option is to say you aren't going to be full power until you get your first 20. There's just no mathematical way to have them stack at low levels and stop stacking at 20.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is called exponential time investment required with ever larger neg lvl death penalties.
It should be extremelly rare to find someone actually get there that's why the stacked should not be gimped(I hope I used that right). It should be so difficult to get there that anyone who does deseves the respect of the community.
One possible way to achieve this is past a certain point the speed with which the increases are earned should be slowed and slowed until you get a negative(which would only go down to the point in which the neg started)which would only apply to the earning of exp while offline, once you come online then you gain at normal speed.
This means someone always playing and never dying might get there but the farther they make it the more stacked against them it becomes, in this way no one would ever actually get the max on everything, and while learning new things when playing their lvls drop their dps everytime they loggout or die. Someone who becomes lvl60(20/20/20) deserves their overpowered ness and makes them rare at best and uncommon at worst.
I know this means a casual player will never get lvl 60 but they would still be a threat more so in groups.
But how else can you make epic level characters rare while allowing casual players to achieve when skill gains are rl time and not active time?
In fact isn't the idea that becomeing something special, should require large investments? If they use this idea then becomeing a lvl 60 is something that would deserve congratulating by rl friends even non-gamers.
How much time will you spend on a single char after 10 years when new stuff has come out?
I think what you are getting hung up is the assumption that PFO will feature "Epic Level Player Characters". I could be wrong on this, but from what I've read from Goblinworks so far, that does not seem to be thier intent. They aren't designing the game toward Epic Level play...they are designing toward the level of play you would see in a typical level 6-10 PnP Campaign. That's the intent, I believe, of what the player characters (regardless of how long they've been in game) are supposed to represent.
I think they are specificaly intending that you don't have player characters that significantly more powerfull then others once you get past a certain point in the game.
In other words....achieving 20/20/20 doesn't make you "special" in regards to anyone else....it's just that you aren't completely stagnating in terms of your abilities.... you are learning to other things (i.e. pursue another career path) not learning to do things better then anyone else. At least that's the gist I get from reading what the Dev's have posted so far. Not sure how it will actualy work out in practice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah I fully understand what you are going for, but the level of difficulty involved in something like that, would have to be something insanely difficult to balance. Honestly to me it seems like the only real option is to say you aren't going to be full power until you get your first 20. There's just no mathematical way to have them stack at low levels and stop stacking at 20.Right, I get that....but I would have to assume that the 5/5/5/5 or whatever the time investement equivalent of the 10 would have to realize some stacking or additive effect of the different levels of his abilities in order to be ROUGHLY on the same playing field power-wise as the 10... his abilities might not FULLY stack or be ADDITIVE to one another because he is gaining more versatility...but I would have to assume there was SOME additive function going on in order for that character to not be gimped.
What I'm trying to reconcile is the mechanism by which the 5/5/5/5 or whatever equivalent realizes SOME additive benefit of his abilities....yet at the same time prevent the 20/20/20/20/20 from realizing an additive benefit of his abilities that we know would result in overshadowing the level 20 not just in versatility but in raw power. It strikes me as somewhat of a catch-22...or at the very least a rather complicated mechanism to try to design.
Yeah, that's what I figured.... just didn't seem to be an ideal design to me. Given that 20 in one class takes 2.5 years real time...that strikes me as pretty long time to have the multi-class guy playing "catch-up"....and on top of that giving up the capstone. Although depending upon how 1-20 scales up in power it might not actualy be that bad. Either that or maybe they really don't intend to make multi-classing before you get your first 20 an attractive design choice.
It didn't strike me as a particulary great option in comparison to doing hard level limit or at the very least a limit on the number of levels you can have "equiped" at any one time.... but I guess we'll see how it works out.
|
|
That's why I gave the idea of exp loss and neg lvls at high lvls because then it makes it difficult to achieve epic while leaving the door open to those few who can get there it also means they don't have to cap anything because noone could actually achieve the max which makes for more fluid and realistic characters.
Ever hear of getting"rusty"? The same could apply here the higher you go the faster you get rusty if done right you would not be capaple of maxing a char without staying active 24/7 for years.
No maxing out, no capping, no "end-game". It allows you to expand options but your stats are not getting higher then point a without enough time investment that you deserve to be overpowered.
This also means that casual players who reach 20 are rarely going to encounter someone who isn't threatened by a lvl 20.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's why I gave the idea of exp loss and neg lvls at high lvls because then it makes it difficult to achieve epic while leaving the door open to those few who can get there it also means they don't have to cap anything because noone could actually achieve the max which makes for more fluid and realistic characters.
Ever hear of getting"rusty"? The same could apply here the higher you go the faster you get rusty if done right you would not be capaple of maxing a char without staying active 24/7 for years.
No maxing out, no capping, no "end-game". It allows you to expand options but your stats are not getting higher then point a without enough time investment that you deserve to be overpowered.
This also means that casual players who reach 20 are rarely going to encounter someone who isn't threatened by a lvl 20.
Trust me, if it's theoreticaly capable of being done in a game...some min/maxers will figure out a way to do it.
It's not that they want only a few/rare people to be "overpowered"...they specificaly want NO ONE to be "overpowered"..... and actualy having a few people by OP is alot less desriable a result then having ALOT of people be OP for this type of game.
Best result is that NO ONE is OP... which is what I believe they are going for.
|
|
If stacking stays how it is now then multiclassing doesn't NEED to catch up to an equal lvl char.
Equiping class abilities seems absurd, more so if you make abilities rely on same power source pools. Mana is mana and you only have so much to spend on spells, then stamina(which isn't in the pnp as a stat but turn based limits to rt stamina is caparable) and hp.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No maxing out, no capping, no "end-game". It allows you to expand options but your stats are not getting higher then point a without enough time investment that you deserve to be overpowered.
This also means that casual players who reach 20 are rarely going to encounter someone who isn't threatened by a lvl 20.
Golden rule of MMO's no matter how darn hard you make something to get to, there will always be enough people with it to make the game miserable for most others, The titan in eve, going by eves real world to game world money conversion, it costs like $15,000, 6 months of labor even after you have saved up that much money etc... Guess what, there are enough out there that it isn't super rare to run into one.
Plus the "getting rusty" and/or "negative levels" thing you are advising also completely crushes the main value of the skill system they are using. The main value is that if you and your friends all roll up a character at the same time. They are all permanently in the same league as each-other, no worrying about who was on more, oh crap Timmy ran up ahead now we have to either make Timmy stand still while we catch up or just let him run off to his own world etc...
|
|
If lvl 20 has 2m exp then you play for 3hrs building up. 180 minutes of exp but lose 30 minutes of exp an hour when logged off then no amount of min/maxing is going to help. As you attain more levels the rate of exp loss increases to the point that you can't get max level and even if you stay on fro 24 hrs during the weekend you are back down to 20 by Monday meaning that you can't max a character and keep a job to pay for your internet so therefore it stops the issue from coming up. Someone will spend a vacation to see how far they can get but all they would gain is an extra abilty or two that playing off the stats of only a 20 lvl character means they earned the minor improvement it also adds challange worthy of the guiness book of world records.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If stacking stays how it is now then multiclassing doesn't NEED to catch up to an equal lvl char.
Equiping class abilities seems absurd, more so if you make abilities rely on same power source pools. Mana is mana and you only have so much to spend on spells, then stamina(which isn't in the pnp as a stat but turn based limits to rt stamina is caparable) and hp.
Right but PnP rulsets typical have a hard-cap on adventuring levels (i.e. 20 levels TOTAL) that are covered by a typical rulset (not quite sure of the specifics for Pathfinder) anything beyond that is not really covered in the ruleset...and usualy gets pushed into some other (Deities & Demi-Gods) rulset for play. That's why stacking/additive abilities aren't as much of an issue there.... that and the fact that the Players in a campaign are likely to all be playing on roughly the same level.
You could use something like a Mana/Stamina type pool to limit how abilities stack up...but then you would have to have pretty much EVERYTHING use up some pool cost... and you'd probably either have to run everything out of one pool...or make the size of one pool effect the potential sizes of the others.
That IS an interesting suggestion for a balancing mechanism that could work though...nice thought there!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If lvl 20 has 2m exp then you play for 3hrs building up. 180 minutes of exp but lose 30 minutes of exp an hour when logged off then no amount of min/maxing is going to help. As you attain more levels the rate of exp loss increases to the point that you can't get max level and even if you stay on fro 24 hrs during the weekend you are back down to 20 by Monday meaning that you can't max a character and keep a job to pay for your internet so therefore it stops the issue from coming up. Someone will spend a vacation to see how far they can get but all they would gain is an extra abilty or two that playing off the stats of only a 20 lvl character means they earned the minor improvement it also adds challange worthy of the guiness book of world records.
No, then you simply have multiple players "sharing" the character so that it is logged on an playing 24/7/365 for multiple years and NEVER logged off.... and again what effectively are you GAINING by implimenting such a system?
|
|
Much preferable then being you can't run ahead and can't even run anymore because of a hard line in the sand.
It is like halo, no invisable wall boundary just a time limit and then your back in the arena with everyone else. It is a soft boundary rather then a hard boundary.
Besides if it takes years to get there then what griefer is going to waste their time here and not griefing on some new game that comes out then? By the time years pass players devoted to the game is what I expect to find with only the occaisional exception.
All my mmo friends only spent a few months playing rift before moving on to the next big thing. When I play mabinogi I rarely if ever see anyone griefing, in fact I can't remember anyone greifing now that I think about it, but I started years after it came out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If lvl 20 has 2m exp then you play for 3hrs building up. 180 minutes of exp but lose 30 minutes of exp an hour when logged off then no amount of min/maxing is going to help. As you attain more levels the rate of exp loss increases to the point that you can't get max level and even if you stay on fro 24 hrs during the weekend you are back down to 20 by Monday meaning that you can't max a character and keep a job to pay for your internet so therefore it stops the issue from coming up. Someone will spend a vacation to see how far they can get but all they would gain is an extra abilty or two that playing off the stats of only a 20 lvl character means they earned the minor improvement it also adds challange worthy of the guiness book of world records.
Well aside from 1. entirely reversing the entire concept that the leveling system was based off in this game, it also will be abused causing many instances of account sharing etc... In a sense the limited forms we talk about are minor improvements, in that even without this odd system of deterrence if you don't stack the abilites directly, then you have the ability to have the right tool for the job. IE a paladin/rogue fighting an undead, a pure pali would be just as good as a pali rogue in this fight, but a pure rogue would be unable to do much at all. Next the pali rogue runs into a nuetural bear, the pure pali wouldn't be particularly strong against this bear since it isn't evil, the rogue could sneak attack it. So the pali rogue has the strengths of both, he is better, but not directly more powerful then either. Now against an evil cleric, the pali/rogue can alternate if he feels like it, or just focus on smiting or sneak attacking, whichever suits him more at the time.
The idea that you absolutely have to have a continual progression is silly, as it will be abused, it will make the game less fun for the 75% of players that will play at normal sane rates, and it won't be impressive when people get it because everyone will know they simply cheated by taking shifts, and even if they didn't, they will be believed to have.
Much preferable then being you can't run ahead and can't even run anymore because of a hard line in the sand.
It is like halo, no invisable wall boundary just a time limit and then your back in the arena with everyone else. It is a soft boundary rather then a hard boundary.
Besides if it takes years to get there then what griefer is going to waste their time here and not griefing on some new game that comes out then? By the time years pass players devoted to the game is what I expect to find with only the occaisional exception.
All my mmo friends only spent a few months playing rift before moving on to the next big thing. When I play mabinogi I rarely if ever see anyone griefing, in fact I can't remember anyone greifing now that I think about it, but I started years after it came out.
running sideways is not the same as running into a wall. I haven't really played mabinogi in ages, but I don't recall it being a heavy PVP focused game. In the proposed system for PFO you are still advancing, still gaining new tricks, new abilities etc... but you are also still remaining on a playing field that does not demoralize anyone else trying to catch up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Much preferable then being you can't run ahead and can't even run anymore because of a hard line in the sand.
It is like halo, no invisable wall boundary just a time limit and then your back in the arena with everyone else. It is a soft boundary rather then a hard boundary.
Besides if it takes years to get there then what griefer is going to waste their time here and not griefing on some new game that comes out then? By the time years pass players devoted to the game is what I expect to find with only the occaisional exception.
All my mmo friends only spent a few months playing rift before moving on to the next big thing. When I play mabinogi I rarely if ever see anyone griefing, in fact I can't remember anyone greifing now that I think about it, but I started years after it came out.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here? The issue has nothing to do with "greifing" that's an entirely different set of issues.
What's being discussed here pretty much falls into players "playing legitmately".
Also this doesn't have anything to do with "invisable boundary" issues. It simply represents characters getting to a certain plateau beyond which thier skills really don't advance any futher in a given area.
This happens in real-life as well...even the "best" marksman in the world isn't going to get any more accurate at hitting a certain type of target with a certain weapon after a given point in thier career. They pretty much reach the limits of thier/the weapons accuracy.
The game-play here (as I've seen it desribed) is not so much centered on an advancement race (i.e. "running ahead") it's about carving out a place for yourself and your group in the game-world.
Note that the way they've described it is that you don't actualy stop learning things....you just stop learning things that increase your raw power in relation to everyone else. At least that sounds like the intent of thier design.
|
|
Either way if I go rogue/pali I shouldn't hve to switch one or the other as that 80% defeats the purpose of multiclassing, and I hate following the archtypes other lay down for me. If I want to be a rog/wiz I should be able to do so smoothly and with my abilities working together as ONE complete character not as a two faced, multipersonality character.
It may not be perfect but it is interesting and keeps the advanced players from progressing too far and does so without hard limits. I don't know of any other games that do this so until someone tries we really don't know if it is very broken or just broken looking on paper.
@grumpymel
And would you play such a shared character for hours a day years later when its build my not be what you want because billy just took that new ability slot for something else when you have new games waiting to be explored?
The amount of effort to do this is staggering and for what? A character that you are only partially satisfied with?
Add in if they make it take longer to advance from 20 to 40 then from 1 to 20 etc, following same rate as book exp then it would literally take a 157.5 years to achieve level 20 in every class.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I want to be a rog/wiz I should be able to do so smoothly and with my abilities working together as ONE complete character not as a two faced, multipersonality character.
I couldn't agree more. That is exactly what I hope they achieve. I don't even think it's going to be that great a challenge; once we see the actual design I think we'll all breathe a sigh of relief and say "Yeah, that'll work, and it makes perfect sense, I don't know why I didn't think of that."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Either way if I go rogue/pali I shouldn't hve to switch one or the other as that 80% defeats the purpose of multiclassing, and I hate following the archtypes other lay down for me. If I want to be a rog/wiz I should be able to do so smoothly and with my abilities working together as ONE complete character not as a two faced, multipersonality character.
It may not be perfect but it is interesting and keeps the advanced players from progressing too far and does so without hard limits. I don't know of any other games that do this so until someone tries we really don't know if it is very broken or just broken looking on paper.
@grumpymel
And would you play such a shared character for hours a day years later when its build my not be what you want because billy just took that new ability slot for something else when you have new games waiting to be explored?
The amount of effort to do this is staggering and for what? A character that you are only partially satisfied with?Add in if they make it take longer to advance from 20 to 40 then from 1 to 20 etc, following same rate as book exp then it would literally take a 157.5 years to achieve level 20 in every class.
I understand what you are saying, but you have to understand that there are multiple competing design goals at play here...
- The goal to not have someone that's been playing 7 years totaly outclass someone that's been playing 2.5 years in terms of power.
- The goal to give someone that has been playing 2.5 years the ability to continue to learn new things to do WITHOUT those things significantly increasing the players power.
- The goal of making different class builds viable...including the ability, presumably, to multi-class.
They have to find some workable mechanism to reconcile these different competing goals....and there are only so many mechanisms availble for them to do so with.
The mechanism you've described doesn't work to achieve the design goal of not allowing players that have been playing 7 years to totaly outclasss players that have been playing 2.5 years at is easly circumvented by those willing to share accounts.
It's kinda the opposite of what they wanted to achieve with thier Real-Time skill gating mechanism.
|
|
I see what you're saying I just disagree, after all I have never played a game where someone who has played for 7 days doesn't totally overpower someone who has played 2.5 days. Why should days vs years make a difference.
Yes there should be balance but that doesn't mean a newbie should get equal chance of winning against a vet, just enough power to effect the outcome in group on group and to make the vet "earn" his kill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see what you're saying I just disagree, after all I have never played a game where someone who has played for 7 days doesn't totally overpower someone who has played 2.5 days. Why should days vs years make a difference.
Yes there should be balance but that doesn't mean a newbie should get equal chance of winning against a vet, just enough power to effect the outcome in group on group and to make the vet "earn" his kill.
Because there has to come a point where it levels off. If someone starts out 5 years in, I believe they will not be happy waiting 10 years to be on an even playing field with the 50,000-100,000 people already there. Particularly because in 10 years, the vets will still be 5 years ahead.
Few people want to play the dopey sidekick that stays out of the way of the big dogs, most people expect to put in their dues for a few months. Almost none will be happy to put in their dues for several years.
We've never said a newbie should have an equal chance of beating a vet. 2.5 years in however that is a vet, if you are still feeling like the absolute newbie almost 3 years in... that isn't going to be a fun game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed.
and, like in the table game, after the first 20 levels, no more advancing in BaB and saves. and no epic bonuses.I have only done epic (and even played a god) in 3.5 but epic bab and such increases as implied by the first 20 lvls; full bab equals lvl, cleric bab equals 3/4 lvl, etc.
@Sepherum, the time it takes to gain a level is based on TOTAL lvl regardless of what those levels were. It would take just as long to become 4mnk/2sorc as it would take to get to 6mnk.
I'm pretty sure that the BaB after the first 20 levels stops augmenting.
Otherwise a 21° fighter would gain the 5th attack. And so is not, because the fifth attack is useless.
Pathfinder has no rules for going behind level 20 (there is a small, very optional, sidebar on how to manage a character with 1-2 levels beyond level 20, but those are simple guidelines, not rules).
3.X has rules for going beyond level 20. The BAB progress (+1 every 2 levels for each class) but your number of attack stay at the level they had when you reached level 20.
The game will not follow Pathfinder rules (as said elsewhere there could be problems with the OGL in following the D&D/D20 rules). It will be a skill based system and probably the way it will simulate the Pen and Paper game rules will not allow too much stacking of abilities.
For everyone else
1 major problematic assumtion I see here is most think a multiclass character is a gesalt character and that's not true. A 10rog/10wiz is a 20 level charater not a 10 level character and therefore can cast 5th level spells(not 9th) and can snk atk +5 dice(not 10).So why do people say characters of vastly different levels need to be equal just because one is a multiclass?
Multiclassing should stack otherwise, what's the point?
It will be a skill based game. To use Ryan definition the skill system will be a "1 mile wide, 1 inch deep" i.e. you will have a lot of skills that stack in a limited way and the cost of increasing a skill will get higher as you increase the skill.
So a guy that took 1 level in "precision damage: monk", 1 in "precision damage: rogue" and 1 in "precision damage duelist" will have 3 ranks in precision damage, the same of someone that has taken 3 ranks in "precision damage: rogue" but he would have spent considerably less time straining them. The stacking rules should take that in account.The way to do that can differ. There culd be only 1 "precision damage" skill and it can be accessible from the Rogue, Monk and Duelist path, there could be a cap on stacking, diminishing returns on staking or plenty of other ways to do that, but there will be some kind of limitation.
Note: the skills suggested are totally bogus and used only as an example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are too many pages here to read lol.
As someone who likes multiclassing, I have always felt that a prestige class is the best way to provide a sort of capstone made particularly for that route.
I mean it provides that middle route not necessarily there otherwise.
Lots of people don't like prestige classes I suppose and pathfinder has been leaning away from it but I still like em
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are quite a few unwarranted assumptions being made by everybody here. The two biggest I see:
1. Players with more merit badges have more hit points (Which itself contains another questionable assumption)
2. Players with more merit badges do more damage.
also, we have the completely incompatible design decision assumption:
A player with way more merit badges should be roughly equal in power to one that has 'enough'.
Those are incompatible. Versatility IS power.
If, on the other hand, we change the first two assumptions:
1. Players that have better offensive equipment will do more damage
2. Players that have better defensive equipment will resist attacks more.
3. Some equipment will be situationaly better than other equipment of the same nominal quality.
4. Players with more merit badges can use more different types of equipment
5. A finite amount of equipment can be used at once
(6.) Backup equipment (carried but not worn) can be lost on defeat.
It is no longer obvious that more merit badges will always result in more power without a corresponding disadvantage. There is a sharp disincentive to carrying multiple sets of the best equipment, since only one set will survive a defeat and there is an incentive for people to gang up on you, and they can have an individual in their group with equipment well-suited to each of your available outfits. It also keeps the large-scale multiplayer complex enough to be interesting.
|
|
i understand limiting stacking but this started with some saying not to stack at all. and i havent found the primary source of info everone talks about but it sounds like you will pick to lvl fighter or wizard or rogue, thus the idea of being lvl 20 in one or another. as far as my idead of a soft boundary, it coyuld be set to what ever lvl you want which would likely be "20th". the point being is it would the take many times longer and far more effort to advance and the character grows sideways not up which gives the feeling of expanding the character but yet it is still on par with with those having just reached "20".
|
|
just wondering if anyone here has played mabinogi?
the system they have is my favorite so far by a long shot. no multiclassing because no classes, skills level individually based on use, and character leveling allows more ability points to buy next skill level once trained up.
starting at diferent ages is also a cool feature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
and i havent found the primary source of info everone talks aboutGoblinworks blogs
A lot of us are assuming that once you reach 20, you will be "roughly on par" with any other character that has reached 20, regardless of what they've achieved after that. I believe we all understand "roughly on par" to mean that it would not just be a cakewalk for them to take you out, even though they might be considerably more versatile. The blog never spells this out directly.
This would actually be a great opportunity for Ryan to clarify whether the intention is that a 20 will be "roughly on par" with a 20/20/20/20 in the same sense than an 18 would be "roughly on par" with a 19, if he's ready to make a statement to that effect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regardless of how its done I hope you can't oneshot someone without a very large lvl difference.
One-shots are realistic, but not fun. A typical combat should last between 30 seconds and 2 minutes for a 1-on-1. The winner should be apparent soon enough for the loser to try to escape.
I also agree, I also think that a large level difference should not bee too subjective. I would say 1 year in that is the point where your level difference should be close enough to the power point that you cannot be one shot by anyone, sure you will be beaten in 90% of situations by a 2.5 year vet, but escaping should be a reasonable possibility.
(I have no idea how to quote text)Click the "Reply" link at the top of the post you want to quote, and then click the "Show" button at the bottom for additional tags you can use.
... in the table top you can spells as a monk/caster or while wearing armor the penelty being the armor gives the spells a chance to fail(which you can take feats to partially bypass) and the monk/caster has split abilities so can't cast as well as a dedicated caster or fight as well as a monk of the same lvl. There is no need to otherwise limit the abilties.I believe the table top version also limits the total number of levels you can have, so that you'll never see a Monk/Wizard that's level 20 in both classes. Since that's going to be possible in PFO, there's been a lot of discussion of how to keep that 20/20 Monk/Wizard from being ridiculously overpowered.
Silence, with an AOE effect. No saves, cause it wasn't cast on you, it only affects the area you are in. No spells, but can still fight. Then, caltrops on the floor. No more fighty fighty for the monk. End of problem.
|
|
That remindes me, there is no limit on lvls in pnp ( unless pf snuck them in there somewhere I didn't see) after 20 lvls of anything is called epic and there are resources for that (though they may be 3.5 only).
players rarely stick with characters that long because they are often inspired to try new character ideas, etc.
however epic play can be rewarding, I even played a god campaign once, which was fun.
|
|
I think it should be quite simply have those who have spent the same amount of "time" on their characters should be on par with each other even if one is multiclass and one is a specialist. the problem is the abilities have to stack to achieve this below 20lvl.
So the idea is if lvl20 is the "limit" (which I hope to not have such a limit) then they need to break something not specific to abilities, thus applicable to anyone multiclass or singleclass.
|
|
I posted this in the "Get rid of the Trinity roles in PFO" thread but I think it is more suited to this thread topic
And again with the multiclassing, I have played a mnk/src many times and ways, they are balanced to equal lvl specialists only if their abilities work together. If the powers are not able to work together then the character is underpowered, which im my opinion is as bad as overpowered.
So this then begs the question, What is the power of a character compared to? An abstract idea? A character with equal investment of time/money/exp? Highest lvl badge regardless of number of badges or the investment to get them?
And how does a "max level" fit in with your answer?
I still think it's acceptable to limit multiclassing power gathering. You already get the benefits of more than one class, in some extremely bizarre cases, three or four. A person that sticks to one thing only isn't going to have all those options, but will be very good at the one class they chose. If you allow someone that won't multiclass by doing one class first, then the other, then that impatience should have limitations.
Impatience by itself suggests a character doesn't have the conviction to truly motivate themselves to gain power, preferring to shortcut it by learning a little in a lot of ways, rather than learning a lot in one thing only. At the start, that multiclass character will be potent, but will be outstripped once the levels stop at 10 each, if they even balance it out. Another character that sticks to one profession will easily outclass that character at the upper peaks. They can't help it, the multiclass character traded in that power for utility. You can't, and should not be able to, have both so easily. It should come after a lot of hard work, which 5 years of labor at it (2.5 for the first one, 2.5 for the other) obviously represent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Multiclassing should never be as potent as someone who focuses.
If a multiclasser and a focuser of equal player skill and ability start at the same time, after 2.5 years when the focuser is 20, the multiclasser would be ~14/14; at this point the focuser is more powerfull. After 5 years when the focuser is now 20/20 and the multiclasser is 20/20, the focuser would be slightly more powerful than the multiclasser, mostly because of 2.5 years of access to high level play giving them access to great gear and access to 2 capstone abilities. Now if another equally skilled player joined the mix after 2.5 years and had a 20 by the 5th, they should be at a somewhat larger but still small disadvantage to the 20/20's.
|
With all this talk of "level 20/20 characters being too powerful compared to a normal level 20 character", a lot of folk seem to have missed where Ryan said that a brand-new starting player would be roughly equivalent to a lvl 6 Pathfinder character, and someone hitting their first capstone would be roughly equivalent to a level 10 Pathfinder character. While one is undeniably more powerful than the other, it's not nearly as extreme as the level ranges in WoW, or PnP Pathfinder.
If, after 2.5 years people start heading into gestalt territory (rather than direct stacking of "levels"), then that's fine by me too. They've put the time in, they should get something for it.
Let me get this straight. Max level 10, and that's it? Two and a half years to reach that? No one having access to any spell list past level five? If that's true, why bother, the PnP game is more fun. I wouldn't give up PnP time to play a game that stops progression half way up the curve. I WANT to get into those heights. That's the whole point of the game, isn't it, to see what you can do at those lofty heights? To have the GM toss some fastballs your way, instead of constantly lobbing them underhand at you?
WoW, I hope I'm reading that wrong.
paladin/rogue, are you freaking kidding me?
I did, and that's exactly what it says. They'll have merits for 20 levels, but they will be the equivalent of lvl 10 PnP characters. Not for me, thanks. That's what DDO did, and is one reason why I never stuck with it. I doubt they'll ever have an actual level 20 PnP equivalent character in DDO, which is why I stuck to the PnP game where that is possible. It just takes a GM who knows the rules and isn't afraid to tough love his players.
That is why when players reached those levels, they tended to roll new ones and start over, trying something else. It would have been nice to have that happen in PFO, reach max, get a new slot and make something new, going to the old one when new challenges appeared and to maintain holdings.
So what if they can do things a level 20 PnP character can't do, for certain they won't be doing things that a level 20 PnP character SHOULD be able to do. Talk about cutting yourself off at the knees. I would love to hear the reasoning behind that approach. (I think I may already have one: PvP...making it possible for new characters to fight established characters, since the actual level difference will be small, it's all augmentations that never advance the core health or power...)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did, and that's exactly what it says.
What? Did you stop reading as soon as you saw this?
The target experience for the game is that players typically see when they're playing 6-10th level PCs.
You would be well-served to spend a minute or two contemplating these:
So the newbie character won't be anywhere as close to as powerful as a 6th level Pathfinder tabletop PC. On the other hand a very old Pathfinder Online character will likely be able to do many things that no 20th level adventurer on the tabletop could do - simply because the online game will have many different kinds of progression and development options that the tabletop game, due to its focus on adventuring characters, doesn't.
Also, you should understand that Ryan came out and said this in direct response to my suggestion that the power levels would be roughly equivalent to levels 6-10 in the PNP version. I was wrong. He was trying to clear that up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let me get this straight. Max level 10, and that's it? Two and a half years to reach that? No one having access to any spell list past level five? If that's true, why bother, the PnP game is more fun. I wouldn't give up PnP time to play a game that stops progression half way up the curve. I WANT to get into those heights. That's the whole point of the game, isn't it, to see what you can do at those lofty heights? To have the GM toss some fastballs your way, instead of constantly lobbing them underhand at you?
WoW, I hope I'm reading that wrong.
paladin/rogue, are you freaking kidding me?
Yup as nihimon beat me to saying, that was a misspeak from Vic, however I can say there is a 90% chance that the curve will not be nearly as strong as it is in the P&P game. I highly doubt (and very strongly hope they GW wouldn't be short sited enough to allow) that a capstoned character of any class will be able to easilly cut through 20-30 level 5-10's without breaking a sweat as they do in the P&P game... if it does go to that extreme the games population would hit a dead stop and rapid decline 5 years in (as new players joining in at that point, would be pretty much useless cannon fodder for the first year and a half of their playing... people expect a bit of time paying their dues before they are useful, but not 1.5 years of it.) I expect to see continous improvements in a character up till the capstone, but probably nowhere near as drastic as people come to expect in the P&P game, my guess (Note I do admit full and well this is a guess), for the most part power level will more or less move up in a liniar steady progression, compared to the P&P game where your power level goes up more or less exponentially.
Basically they will need to make it so that level 5's and 10s can contribute more to a battle then soak up 1 hit that would have otherwise hit someone who mattered. Eve was very good at this in that a 2 month in character, could take down a 1 year in character with the right circumstance.
As far as paladin rogue... that combination isn't even illegal in P&P. (rogues have no alignment requirement, a LG rogue while unlikely and difficult to use his abilities is fully permitted.) Also I think that it is unlikely that most or all abilities will be available simultaneously. I can't say for certain how they will balance and make this work, currently I have 3 guesses.
1. Tie most abilities to specific armor/weapons to prevent simultaneous usage. (IE sneak attack requires a dagger to be equiped, smite evil requires a weapon to be blessed (making it unusable for other abilities), favored enemy bonus requiring dual wielding or bow etc...
2. Have many abilities on a universal cooldown, IE after using sneak attack you must wait 6 seconds before you can do another sneak attack or a smite evil, the universal cooldown applying to both abilities.
3. A completely revised and re-written skill system, where the majority of class abilities do not actually specifically involve damaging. Actual damage is tied to weapon types (and individually levelable skills for each weapon), and the class abilities from merit badges being more along the lines of utility tricks.
Actually, even a level 20 PnP character is easily and swiftly killed by a group of about 20 orcs using bows surrounding him. After the adjustments for flanking and no shield and rear attacks are taken into account, said player is a pincushion and likely dead in round two, particularly if they used poison, even if he can somehow reach half of them, which is unlikely. For a bunch of newbs to attempt to melee a max level player, IMO they deserve to be mowed down. Range is the great equalizer. It does the same damage regardless of level.
I checked the core book again. Sadly you are correct, thieves can be lawful. <sigh> I'd forgotten how silly the alignment rules became in 3ed thanks to WoTC. A rogue that picks pockets and steals is not lawful. In no way, shape or form. Robin Hood might have been doing some Good, but Lawful? Hardly. I think it would be good for Paizo to revisit some of the silliness that WoTC introduced into the game, because they only changed the rules just to sell another iteration of a functioning game system. And allowing a thief to be lawful good is one of them. If I ever play this game and run into a LG paladin/rogue, I'm going to KOS them, because there is no way that should happen. Just because they changed the rules doesn't make them good changes. Even letting them learn magic spell casting is ridiculous IMO, even if it is limited. That's what wizards are for. I think it's enough they can learn to trick magic items into thinking they can use them, but letting them cast spells? OP. way WAY OP. Munchkin all the way. Why is it munchkin? Because it's letting a single class character take on some of the characteristics of another class without actually multi-classing. So a 2/1 Rogue/Fighter is actually a 2/1/1 Rogue/Fighter/Wizard, if they took the correct feat. They are just short the 1 HD.
I keep forgetting that I played the game back during the Time of Gygax, when the rules made sense for the most part. Most of the new blood for DnD has been playing the WoTC crap, so I should really cut them some slack for not knowing what the game was meant to be like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, even a level 20 PnP character is easily and swiftly killed by a group of about 20 orcs using bows surrounding him. After the adjustments for flanking and no shield and rear attacks are taken into account, said player is a pincushion and likely dead in round two, even if he can somehow reach half of them, which is unlikely. For a bunch of newbs to attempt to melee a max level player, IMO they deserve to be mowed down. Range is the great equalizer. It does the same damage regardless of level.
While borderline true on that, you also are negating that a high level character can have absolute defenses against range. Heck protection from arrows is a 2nd level spell easilly affordable in a potion.
Ignoring that also, what makes you think in my example the 1 level 20 is the defender... Assuming a P&P level power curve, what is to stop a single band of 4 capstoned characters from flat out obliterating anyone under level 10 outside of the super protected starting areas... Are you implying that the primary content of the game (The pvp/kingdom battles etc...), should be entirely off limits to characters under level 15? Bottom line PVP is going to be a large portion of the content, and the PVP is going to be open world based... IE not tiered out by level etc... Not many people are going to enjoy the game where the main content is off limits for over a year, and their only 2 roles in the main content would be sitting back at base polishing swords or serving as decoys
I checked the core book again. Sadly you are correct, thieves can be lawful. <sigh> I'd forgotten how silly the alignment rules became in 3ed thanks to WoTC. A rogue that picks pockets and steals is not lawful. In no way, shape or form. Robin Hood might have been doing some Good, but Lawful? Hardly. I think it would be good for Paizo to revisit some of the silliness that WoTC introduced into the game, because they only changed the rules just to sell another iteration of a functioning game system. And allowing a thief to be lawful good is one of them. If I ever play this game and run into a LG paladin/rogue, I'm going to KOS them, because there is no way that should happen. Just because they changed the rules doesn't make them good changes. Even letting them learn magic spell casting is retarded IMO. That's what wizards are for. I think it's enough they can learn to trick magic items into thinking they can use them, but letting them cast spells? OP. way WAY OP. Munchkin all the way.
Well where I disagree with you on, is assuming that just because someone's class is a rogue, that they have to be thieves. There are no manditory skills for a rogue that require him to be a thief at all. Sleight of hand, is an optional skill he can get, just like create undead is an optional skill for a wizard or cleric. Sneak attack is going for weak spots on the target, is a keen weapon or improved critical out of alignment for a paladin? While 90% of rogues are thieves, and theft is always chaotic, and often evil, there is nothing in the rogue class that mandates him to be an actual thief. Just a general knowlege that he would be good at being a thief if he wanted to.
I also don't see what exactly is super powerful about a rogue having the ability to learn a 0th or 1st level spell I fail to see any 1st level spells as more powerful than your average rogue trick. Either way that mystery is a moot point considering we have no idea what PFO rogues abilities are going to be. Though I do imagine there will be several multiclassed rogue/wizards, of course I still have no idea how much or little abilities will bleed from one class to another or what limits there will be when it comes to multiclass to keep them in check.